Debates of April 28th, 1995

Occupational Health And Safety

[Audrey McLaughlin, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House to pay tribute to those workers who have been killed or injured in the performance of their duties.

In February 1991, a private member's bill tabled by my former colleague, Rod Murphy, was passed, designating April 28 as an official day of mourning for those killed or injured at work. There are four workplace fatalities every working day in Canada, while a serious injury occurs every seven seconds of every working day.

Every year, workers develop occupational diseases which, very often, are neither declared nor covered by any compensation plan. Governments here and abroad continue to ignore health and safety standards and their enforcement. We continue to work with our counterparts at the national and international levels to set global health and safety standards.

We have the right to defend workers around the world, especially within the context of free trade agreements. Thank you for giving me your attention and allowing me to speak on this solemn occasion.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as others have noted, today is a national day of mourning for the workers of Canada who have been maimed, injured or killed while on the job.

In recognition of these tragedies and in solidarity with these workers, their families, their friends, I ask you and hon. colleagues to join me in a moment of silence in the House at this time.

[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]

Seagram

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the Minister of Canadian Heritage quietly took a trip to Los Angeles, where he met with Edgar Bronfman, the owner of Seagram, at the very moment that the acquisition of communications giant MCA by Seagram was announced. The possibility of such a transaction, involving several Canadian interests in the book, film, record and distribution industries, had been in the news for a few weeks.

In this context, how can the acting Prime Minister explain that the Minister of Canadian Heritage placed himself in a conflict of interest situation by happening to be in Mr. Bronfman's suite just as Mr. Bronfman announced this transaction, given that the deal will have to be approved by Investment Canada?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member reveals a lack of understanding of what the Investment Canada review process consists.

First, Investment Canada is located in the Department of Industry. Second, the threshold issue will be determined by an official, the acting president of Investment Canada, on whether or not Seagram is a Canadian controlled corporation. If it is, there is no Investment Canada review required.

This indicates his hypothesis is incorrect. The review is based on an application initiated by the purchaser, which in this case is Seagram, rather than by the acquired company.

There is no real or apparent conflict in the visit that the Minister of Canadian Heritage paid to producers in Los Angeles.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact on the hill that no one understands anything, except the Minister of Industry, who understands everything. In fact, everyone in Canada and Quebec understands that there was a minister of this government in Mr. Bronfman's suite, when the most important deal in media history was struck. Everyone can understand that. The only one who does not understand is the Minister of Industry.

I would like to ask the acting Prime Minister how he can deny that the Minister of Canadian Heritage put himself in a conflict of interest situation since, by a pure coincidence once again, input from the Department of Canadian Heritage is required to help Investment Canada analyze the transaction between Seagram and MCA and its implications.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the Minister of Canadian Heritage will be present later in question period if there are questions regarding the details of his visit to Los Angeles.

There is neither an apparent nor a real conflict of interest in the Minister of Canadian Heritage meeting with a group of film makers and producers, all of whom carry on business in Canada, and representing the interests and views of Canadians in that milieu.

No review is under way at the present time. No application for review is under way at the present time. In fact, the threshold determination of whether or not Seagram is a Canadian company has yet to be made.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what are we to believe: that when the heritage minister visited Los Angeles two weeks ago, he did so as a Canadian government emissary announcing to Liberal friends that the approval of Seagram's deal by Investment Canada would not be a problem, or did he travel to Los Angeles just to discuss the smog problem?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, in the event of a review of the transaction by Investment Canada, it would be the objective of the government to improve on the existing undertakings with respect to the corporation MCA.

It is clear that in the interests of Canadians, any review of that transaction, if it were favourably disposed of, would result in benefits to Canada pursuant to the Investment Canada Act.

The government has an obligation to have the best possible understanding of the business and of the undertakings of the acquirer as well as the acquiree corporation in Canada. That does not create a conflict of interest.

If there is a conflict of interest, I do not know where it is.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose it was a cultural exchange between Mickey Mouse and a representative of the federal government, when the Minister of Canadian Heritage, unbeknownst to the taxpayers, went to Los Angeles two weeks ago. That just does not make sense.

My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Considering the conflict of interest guidelines that apply to members of this government and considering that the case of Power DirecTV has shown there is a very close relationship between this government and influential Liberals in the business community, including Mr. Paul Desmarais, father of the Prime Minister's son-in-law and member of the board of directors of Seagram, does the acting Prime Minister realize that the conduct of the Minister of Canadian Heritage raises questions about the integrity of the Liberal government?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the House over the last few days, members like the one opposite are prepared to make allegations founded not on fact but simply on innuendo.

In the preamble to his question he tries to link the decision to table a direction with respect to direct to home satellites to some kind of apparent conflict. As recently as this morning's Montreal Gazette , we have yet another editorial opinion saying: ``The government in overruling the CRTC has made its future decisions easier. The guiding principle for the CRTC is that all its decisions reflect the best interests of consumers and that includes competition in choice''.

I can understand that perhaps the member opposite is not in favour of competition in choice and is not interested in the affairs of consumers. That is for him to say. But to suggest that acting in the interest of consumers is somehow motivated by a conflict is an entirely unfounded, improper and irrelevant allegation.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how surprising that The Gazette should support the Liberals. Very surprising indeed.

After seeing the way his minister proceeded in the Ginn Publishing affair, the disturbing letters he wrote to CRTC, his betrayal of his commitments to the CBC and his abdication of his mandate in the case of Power DirecTv, would the acting Prime Minister, leader in this House and defender of his government's integrity, agree that the Minister of Canadian

Heritage is no longer capable of performing his duties and that consequently, he will have to ask for his resignation?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, actually this is a worthwhile question. It reveals the real motivation of the Bloc Quebecois in this, which is to malign personally the integrity of a minister of the government without fact, without any basis in policy or otherwise.

The government stands prepared to debate its policy with respect to DTH satellite broadcasting, to review the issue of the acquisition of MCA, in fact its review under the Investment Canada Act and to respond to questions concerning the objections or otherwise of these decisions.

For the hon. member to stand up and make the ridiculous and absurd allegations that he is making today, totally unfounded, demonstrates the political motivation. That is all there is behind this.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Canadians have no tolerance for governments that conduct public business behind closed doors.

First we had a backroom deal and an unprecedented use of cabinet powers to benefit Power Corp. and the Desmarais family. Now we have the makings of a backroom deal to benefit Seagram and the Bronfman family. It is this type of thing that undermines Canadians' confidence in their elected officials.

Will the Prime Minister admit that his Minister of Canadian Heritage has committed yet another grave error in judgment by meeting with Edgar Bronfman prior to Seagram's takeover of MCA?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I believe what undermines Canadian confidence are unfounded allegations.

I remind the hon. member that those in this House who stand to accuse others may one day have to stand to defend themselves. I suggest that she should be a little more sensitive.

I will give her a suggestion of what the popular media is saying on this. I offer her at this time today's Financial Post which states: ``Rather than being politically motivated the cabinet decision is clearly based on the desire for competition and not the creation of a monopoly in DTH satellite service''.

If the Reform Party is interested in competition, then the hon. member would be saying something about the content of the report, rather than making the silly allegations that she has made this morning. In fact what I observed on "Canada AM" yesterday was that the spokesman for the Reform Party said he could not comment on this because he had interests with Expressvu.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday and again today the industry minister denies that the heritage minister knew anything about Seagram's acquisition of MCA at the time of his meeting with the Bronfmans.

In fact the Minister of Canadian Heritage was informed of the takeover by Allan Karp, the CEO of Cineplex-Odeon, more than two weeks before the backroom meeting. That makes the minister's actions even more reprehensible.

Why was the industry minister not briefed on the heritage minister's meetings with Seagram?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of seeking briefings on the heritage minister's meetings.

Let me advise the hon. member that this infamous luncheon she is making a great deal of seemed to have quite a few people at it who are associated with a variety of companies in the Los Angeles area. Yes, Mr. Karp was present, as were officials from Canada. Also present were Mr. Jack Valenti of the Motion Picture Association of America; Lew Wasserman, chairman of the board of Music Corporation of America, Universal; Sid Scheinberg of Music Corporation of America, Universal; Bill Baker of Motion Picture Association of America, and on it goes. There were quite a lot of people at this secret meeting to somehow influence the decision of Investment Canada.

These allegations are really not worthy of the hon. member.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry has accused the opposition of focusing on personality because we cannot criticize the process.

Let us look at the process. We have seen an unprecedented use of cabinet power. We have seen secret meetings and unlimited access being given to a favoured few.

Whether we look at Pearson, direct to home satellite or the Seagram takeover, the major players are all the same: Desmarais, John Rae, Bronfman, Rabinovitch and Goldenberg. The family compact indeed is alive and well.

How can this government reassure Canadians that Investment Canada's decision will be free from political influence?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, let us set a few facts straight from the beginning. Yes, the use of the direction by the government is unprecedented. It is a relatively recent power contained in the Broadcasting Act, as the hon. member knows.

There is nothing wrong with the government having power to make policy. That is what we are elected to do, to establish policy. That is what our responsibility is, to establish policy, yes, for Canadians. That direction does not give anyone a licence. What it does is create a level playing field for competition where companies can apply to get a licence on fair terms.

The government does not direct who gets a licence. The government does not tell the CRTC what to do. The government sets the policy direction. That is what our responsibility is.

If the Reform Party is against competition, if Reform Party members do not care about the interests of consumers, let them stand up and say so. If they are interested in competition, let us hear one, just one, solitary, useful suggestion as to how we get competition.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before he lost his temper, the Minister of Industry advised us to put our questions to the Minister of Canadian Heritage when he arrived in the House. That is now the case.

Therefore, considering the conflict of interest guidelines governing members of this government, the fact that the Power DirecTV case has indicated the existence of a very close relationship between this government and influential Liberals in the business community, including Paul Desmarais, father of the Prime Minister's son-in-law and a member of the board of directors of Seagram's, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage realize that his conduct has cast doubts on the integrity of the Liberal government?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have explained many times why the government decided to table its proposed directives to the CRTC. We are talking about competition, Canadian content, transparency and the structure of the information highway. These are fundamental aspects of policy, and all interests in the information highway applauded this decision. They felt we were being open, frank and transparent, and by putting this before the House, we are giving all members of this august assembly an opportunity to express their views during a forty-day period, when there will be a discussion on DTH satellite services.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I hope the Solicitor General, who wanted to answer on his behalf, will let the minister answer the question.

There is a lot to ask, but this question concerns the trip to Los Angeles and a visit to Mr. Bronfman's suite when the transaction took place. And we want to hear what the Minister of Canadian Heritage has to say about that.

After his performance in the Ginn Publishing case, after the disturbing letters he wrote to the CRTC, after making certain statements that came back to haunt him, after his betrayal of commitments he made to the CBC and his abdication of his mandate in his handling of the Power DirecTV case, does the minister still have the courage to do the honourable thing and resign?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's performance is reminiscent of the best horror movies.

What the Minister of Canadian Heritage was doing in Los Angeles was defending and promoting the interests of the film industry in Canada. I have always said that content was important on the information highway, and I am responsible for promoting that content.

In the past few months I conducted extensive consultations with the industries concerned in Canada, and our conclusion was that it was advisable to meet the main competitors and also to look into opportunities for co-operation. That is what I did when I went to Los Angeles.

I may add that I never was in the suite next door to a certain gentleman referred to by the hon. member.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Yesterday the minister stated that the heritage minister has no role to play regarding the Seagram acquisition and that Industry Canada is dealing with the issue on its own. Despite this, Investment Canada officials confirm that they have already had discussions with heritage officials regarding the Seagram file.

If Investment Canada is to work on its own and if heritage has no role to play, why are this minister's officials consulting with heritage officials? Why is it the minister does not seem to know about it?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, if I gave that impression in my answer yesterday, then I was wrong.

To be exact about it, on the issue of whether Seagram is a Canadian corporation, heritage has no role to play. That is a determination made by the acting president of Investment Canada. If the transaction is reviewable by Investment Canada, then it does become an acquisition in the cultural sector. With respect to that decision, which is a decision I would make, I would consult in the normal manner with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and officials would consult with each other.

What I was endeavouring to explain was that at this stage we do not have an application under review because we are still at the stage of satisfying ourselves as to whether or not Seagram is a Canadian corporation.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should mark this day on the calendar. It is the first day I am aware of that a minister across the way has admitted to being wrong.

Given the talks with heritage officials and given the heritage minister's meeting with the Bronfmans, how can the minister deny that he has allowed Investment Canada's decision to be tainted by the appearance of undue influence?